ICE Doubles Worksite Enforcement Investigations

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that it opened 3,510 worksite investigations in the past seven months, more than doubling the number of investigations opened during fiscal year 2017. The scrutiny on U.S. employers is part of ICE’s effort to create a “culture of compliance” in the business community and is expected to intensify as President Trump takes further steps to crackdown on immigration abuses.

ICE is the federal agency charged with the enforcement of the employment verification provisions enacted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. Its current strategy, according to Derek N. Benner, Acting Executive Associate Director for ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Division, is to focus on criminal prosecutions of employers that knowingly break the law and to use I-9 audits and resulting civil fines assessed against employers as tools to encourage compliance with the law.

Considering the significant increase in enforcement since the start of fiscal year 2018, the strategy appears to be working. In the seven months between October 1, 2017, and May 4, 2018, ICE initiated a total of 2,282 I-9 audits—a number that is up 60 percent from the previous fiscal year. The agency also made 594 criminal arrests and 610 administrative worksite-related arrests, roughly four times the number of arrests made in fiscal year 2017.

According to Benner, ICE is planning another wave of I-9 audits this summer, which will likely bring the total number of investigations to more than 5,000 by the end of fiscal year 2018. The agency’s ultimate goal, if it can secure funding and support from the Trump administration, is to open as many as 10,000–15,000 audits a year and to instill in employers a “reasonable expectation” that they will be audited.

Given the agency’s goal to audit many more companies regardless of size, location, or type, now may be a good time for employers to conduct internal reviews of their I-9 files and compliance processes, train hiring personnel on proper I-9 verification, correct any compliance deficiencies to the extent possible, and make sure employers know their rights in the event of a worksite visit. Employers may also want to take proactive steps to develop policies and procedures to follow in the event of a worksite inspection so that they are better prepared to effectively assert their rights and protect their interests. Here are some considerations employers can keep in mind in the event of an ICE visit:

Employers may ask ICE agents to identify themselves and obtain their names and business cards.

If ICE has a search warrant, employers may ask to review the warrant. If there is no search warrant, ICE cannot enter the premises without the permission of an authorized representative.

Upon ICE’s arrival, a company should consider notifying the appropriate corporate officer(s) and provide them with a copy of the search warrant. Time is of the essence because ICE is not required to wait for counsel to arrive before beginning its search.

Employers should remember that if ICE demands to review I-9 forms, the agent must produce a notice of inspection (NOI) or an administrative subpoena and that ICE must give an employer at least 72 hours to turn over I-9 documents.

If ICE serves a NOI or subpoena, an employer may want to notify the appropriate corporate officer(s) and provide them with a copy of that document. Again, time is of the essence because ICE tends to be strict with enforcing the 72-hour deadline.

Employers may want to appoint a designated staff member to be the primary point of contact for the government agents conducting the investigation. Ideally, the designated staff member would be someone who is familiar with the employer’s immigration records and procedures so he or she can answer basic government questions. Employees can direct all inquiries and requests from ICE agents to the designated point of contact.

An employer may deny ICE access to nonpublic areas of the employer’s property if ICE does not have a search warrant. In fact, employers in California are prohibited by state law from permitting ICE agents to access nonpublic areas without a warrant and from sharing personnel records (including I-9 forms) with agents without a warrant, subpoena, or NOI.

Employees are not required to give any statements to ICE officers. But if an employee is to be interviewed as a representative of the employer, the employer has the right to have counsel present during any such questioning.

Employers may want to take detailed notes of all activities being performed by the visiting government officials. If ICE agents remove documents or items from the premises when executing a search warrant, employers may want to take notes of what was removed and request an inventory list from the ICE agent.

ICE agents may not insist that an employer representative remain in a specific location or office unless ICE has detained or arrested that person based on probable cause or an arrest warrant. Thus, the employer representative may legally shadow the ICE agents as they execute the search warrant, so long as the representative does not actively interfere in the agent’s execution of the warrant.

Melissa Manna is an Immigration Practice Group Writer. Her primary focus is writing and editing legal articles relating to immigration for the firm’s online and print publications, websites, and newsletters.

Prior to joining Ogletree Deakins, Melissa spent 9 years as in-house counsel at TowerCo, one of the largest independent wireless tower companies in the U.S., representing the company in all aspects of commercial real estate. During that time she managed due diligence, advised and implemented risk management solutions, and closed transactions...

Bernhard Mueller is a member of the International Practice Group of Ogletree Deakins and has more than 14 years of experience in handling employment and immigration law matters for multinational corporations. A native of Germany, Bernhard focuses his international employment practice on Europe, Canada, Latin America and Africa, where he has handled matters involving global workforce mobility, European data privacy / data protection compliance issues, global sales incentive pay plans, employment and expatriate assignment contracts, employer policies and handbooks, immigration law compliance and government enforcement matters, and immigration options for international assignments and technical assistance projects.

He represents clients across the United States and internationally in a broad range of industries, including manufacturing, aerospace, information technology, biotech / biopharma, utilities, oil & gas, construction, telecommunication, and professional services.

Admitted to Practice

South Carolina

North Carolina

Education

J.D., cum laude, University of South Carolina School of Law, 2001

MIBS, cum laude, (Master in International Business Studies) University of South Carolina Darla Moore School of Business, 2001

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.